RE: ANSI and Unicode for x00 - xFF

From: Michael michka Kaplan (michka@trigeminal.com)
Date: Fri Oct 28 2005 - 09:09:59 CST

  • Next message: Andrew S: "votes vs. opinions (was Re: Improper grounds for rejection of proposal N2677)"

    On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 07:32:32 -0700, Murray Sargent wrote
    > Bob asks, "Does anyone know whether (or why not) it is possible to
    > use the ISCII Devanagari code page (57002) as the default system
    > code page in Windows?"
    >
    > Windows does support translating between the ISCII code pages and
    > Unicode via the MultiByteToWideChar() and WideCharToMultiByte()
    > system calls. But about the time Indic support was introduced
    > (Windows 2000), the decision was made not to add more code pages as
    > system code pages. The idea was that Unicode should be used and code
    > pages should be supported, but deemphasized.
    >
    > In general this decision has worked out well. But one way that code
    > pages have been very useful is that they define character sets for
    > writing systems. For example, text stamped with code page 932 should
    > be rendered for the most part with a Japanese font. In plain text
    > such as this email one doesn't have this information, so for
    > international text in general one has to resort to a complicated set
    > of heuristics to make good rendering choices.

    On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 07:32:32 -0700, Murray Sargent wrote
    > Bob asks, "Does anyone know whether (or why not) it is possible to
    > use the ISCII Devanagari code page (57002) as the default system
    > code page in Windows?"
    >
    > Windows does support translating between the ISCII code pages and
    > Unicode via the MultiByteToWideChar() and WideCharToMultiByte()
    > system calls. But about the time Indic support was introduced
    > (Windows 2000), the decision was made not to add more code pages as
    > system code pages. The idea was that Unicode should be used and code
    > pages should be supported, but deemphasized.
    >
    > In general this decision has worked out well. But one way that code
    > pages have been very useful is that they define character sets for
    > writing systems. For example, text stamped with code page 932 should
    > be rendered for the most part with a Japanese font. In plain text
    > such as this email one doesn't have this information, so for
    > international text in general one has to resort to a complicated set
    > of heuristics to make good rendering choices.

    Additional reasons for the original question as to technical limitations
    behind it can be found here:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/10/28/486232.aspx

    MichKa [Microsoft]
    NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Technical Lead
    Globalization Infrastructure, Fonts, and Tools



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 09:11:04 CST